Marcelo_Dos_Santos Reviews

Changeling (2008)

That little miracle called Angelina Bertrand Voight

[8/10 · 28 March 2012]

I don't have anything against directors shooting the same movie again and again, from different angles and points of view. Some of my favorite directors (Hitchcock, Carpenter, Kubrick) spent their entire careers doing just that.

And, fortunately, the same thing happens with Eastwood work. "Changeling" is, in a sense, "Mystic River". In another sense, is "J. Edgar". In yet another sense (the darkness, sadness, desperation and violence underlying the Charleston dancing, coke-sniffing, miniskirts blowing in the 20's US society) is a profound reflection about "In cool blood" and the manner in which the authority figures cooperate with the bad guys.

But this particular movie is not about love, killers or bad cops; it studies the way the general corruption of the official servants (call it politicians, doctors in public health services, policemen, church priests, journalists, lawyers, foreign services et cetera) simply collaborate with the pervert, abusive, molester crooks of this world. Eastwood tells us all the time: "With friends like those, the victims need no foes". Under this light, the movie becomes an essay about the lack of individual rights and guaranteed freedom that all the Western societies are supposed to grant to their citizens.

With all the accustomed minimalist mise-en-scène and a wonderful, extremely detailed makeup and costumes, Eastwood's steady hand guides the action through touching, full of emotion, many times unexpected paths.

The story progresses nos-stop; the dramatic crescendo is unstoppable and ever increasing, the camera work is astonishing and, supported by a very apt cast, it lead onto an incredible final climax (with the usual Eastwood's low-key end after the grand finale).

The movie depicts, also, a little acting miracle: Angelina Jolie's powerful character, treated here as if she were a blind, furious, devastating force of nature. She will relentless follow her objectives no matter what her enemies do, leaving them no place to hide. She's a storm, a tsunami, an vengeanceful earthquake that cries, yells and punches the evil organizations in the very heart. Will she fulfill her desires or not? Doesn't matter. The real matter is the fight, not the success.

For short: a film about our daily struggle with the stubborn, corrupt and selfish States.

Worth seeing: Positively.

The Walking Dead: Beside the Dying Fire (2012) Season 2, Episode 13

The world has 198 countries... The US is only ONE of them

[7/10 · 21 March 2012]

Why this strange summary? You'll find out later.

Last episode of Season 2, grand finale. Zombie apocalypse for the farm (its owner, that huge actor named Scott Wilson owns also the better and most solid acting work of the whole series, along Jeffrey DeMunn) and turning point for the characters' fate and the plot itself.

Very well directed, better written than other episodes of this season, and with a pretty trustworthy cast (along the two miracles noted above), this one represents a good finale. And, with an enigmatic new character presented in the end, we'll wait until October or so to know what's next.

Sadly, Frank Darabont never directed another episode but the Season 1 pilot. Pity, we want more of him, one of the finest movie directors alive in the whole world.

And... What happened to you, AMC? With this episode only running in the USA, you spoiled the entire script in your official blog! Are you crazy, people? America is only one of the 198 countries in this world, and in the most of them the finale was not aired when you published the spoilers! Dear readers: if you don't like to have the finale totally ruined, DON'T VISIT the official AMC blog until you see it.

Worth seeing: Yes, very much. But the blog administrators deserve something worst than walking un-death.

Touch (2012–2013)

The ubiquitous Fibonacci

[8/10 · 13 March 2012]

Yet we know that most aspects of our universe are ruled by Fibonacci's series. Mathematics, astronomy, even many biological phenomena obeys this numerical successions.

And the arts. This very pilot, for instance. Constructed as a typical —and a very simple one,— Fibonacci's series, "Touch" tells the story of a man (Sutherland) whose son, autistic, apparently can somehow "see" the Fibonacci's series underneath every single event in our world —or, at least, in the script's world—. Obviously, if you think about it, if you can see the Fibonacci's numbers, since they are fixed and immutable, you always can predict the next number waiting to be generated. And that's it, I just said everything.

From here on (and this is the very beginning of the pilot), the events will develop in very different places and in very different ways, always involving some manner of relationship with Fibonacci's numbers.

An interesting, beautifully written and directed first episode, "Touch" revolves around a basic premise of science: the more we know about the universe, the more unanswered questions raise in our knowledge.

Last but not least, we get some excellent acting from Sutherland, the little David Mazouz and, of course, the big, big Danny Glover.

Worth seeing: If you judge for the only episode I saw (the pilot) yes, without doubts.

Super 8 (2011)

Nostalgic and very well told

[7/10 · 6 March 2012]

Some friends in a little town. A bunch of kids faced to a completely unimaginable situation. A small city isolated by a strange happening. The military taking over. The sweet smell of distant childhood as remembered by sensitive ones. A movie within a movie (or maybe "a dream within a dream", Poe dixit). Tell you something? Yeah, there are a few specialist on these matters. John Carpenter in "Village of the Damned", "The Fog", "Christine", Stephen King ("It", "The Stand", "The Body", "Duma Key" and a million et ceteras) and Steven Spielberg ("Jaws", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "E.T."). And so on. All of them share a very personal view about the reality: the world is a strange, hostile place to live in, and the only way is the group, call it friendship, loyalty or love, but the group anyway.

This movie is about just that: a bunch of friends, young kids in a journey of knowledge, a ritual of manhood, an unbelievable event that force them to grow up, to mature, to start giving value to thinks they never thought about before.

J.J. Abrams (without any shame or guilt, because this film is just about this) develops a powerful tale of love and friendship among an apocalyptic chaos, unleashed in a small village by an unprecedented event. But the story isn't about the event, but our society and the way we raise our children.

If you look carefully (or even casually at all), you'll quickly see that, smartly enough, Abrams switches parts from the very beginning: all the kids behavior like grownups, with decision and intelligent thinking, and all the adults do the very opposite: they are selfish, childish, totally unfocused on those things that really matters.

And when the chaos menaces lives and the happiness of everyone, the one and only solution rises from beyond the hard feelings and confusion, and then the climax claims its terrain.

Mr. Abrams gives his tribute to, yes, "E.T.", yes, "Stand by me" and even "Close Encounters" as many editors correctly pointed out in other reviews, and, more noticeably, to John Carpenter (look for the underground sequence and tell me if you didn't expect to find Dr. Blair down there, if you know what I mean) and George Romero, all of them films, books and artists who share the same vision about life, collaboration and love. And, homage after homage in visuals, SFX and score, builds a movie of pure entertainment, a story of passion and emotion, and a big moral about the dangers of power and moral descent.

The movie is a very enjoyable experience for all audiences, and a very spectacular one indeed, despite some over-the-top CGIs (the train, mainly).

Embedded in this great script and direction, you will find some real gems: those two miracles of non-methodic (in the sense of not committing with Stanislavski-Grotowski Actor's Studio acting method), negative performances (the excellent and ever-focused child actors Elle Fanning and Joel Courtney), an amazing beauty (Amanda Michalka) and the promising future star (yes, we can foresee that) Riley Griffiths as the kid who directs the movie within the movie (which results you'll can appreciate along the end credits).

Watch, also, for the miraculous Fanninng's performance in the train station, immediately previous to the train's entering.

Worth seeing: You bet your life.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Nice work from David Fincher

[6/10 · 5 March 2012]

Not having seen the original Swedish version and not knowing anything about the author, the novels or the previous films and sequels, I approached this movie just as it is: a new work from that genius called David Fincher.

After a long, complex, Hans-Ruedi-Giger-esque, not-contents-related main credits sequence —unless you can see something at a deep symbolic level— (and, fair is to say, so eye-catching that you find yourself having a big trouble trying to read the credits texts itself) but nice anyway, Fincher loses (for the first and only time in the movie) sight of his objectives and the narrative he's trying to tell. Yes, very scarce in Fincher's work, he drops the ball and spends at least 10 minutes trying to introduce the characters to the viewer. And he completely fails.

After this —the critical period when some percentage of the audience very well could think "This doesn't make any sense" and replace the DVD for "The Birds" or something), he finds the path again, more precisely when the viewer discovers what the mcguffin is and what the characters and supposed and expected to do to find it out.

The movie goes on as a very effective thriller, with all the classic ingredients to maintain you nailed to the seat, and a handful of superb actors that deliver just as needed, and better.

The dark, oppressive, claustrophobic visual treatment gives the atmosphere, and the obvious Fincher's directing skills conduct the narration in an impressive, brilliant manner.

That's true, this is not a Fincher masterpiece, but, as a standalone picture (and not trying to compare it with its Swedish precedents), this movie works, and functions very well indeed. The disembodied, fleshless violence (at times for no reason at all) represents the jungle in the middle of Scandinavia, and the characters' struggle to find a dark, elusive truth conducts the action until the interesting —yet somewhat foreseeable— climax.

All said, if you forgive those clumsy first minutes noted above and wait for the plot to develop, this film could become a very enjoyable experience, particularly for Fincher's visual style fans.

Worth seeing? Yes.

J. Edgar (2011)

Just a beautiful love story

[8/10 · 28 February 2012]

Everybody knows that Clint Eastwood is Sergio Leone's artistic son. Everything in his shooting and editing style shouts this single fact at us. Mainly based on the Confucio's famous phrase ("Before you embark on a journey of revenge, you dig two graves"), Mr. Eastwood's work, in its entirety, relies on the concept that, whatever happens to you, your life is (or should be) an act of love.

And "J. Edgar" is just that, a beautiful, aptly directed love story. They are wrong if they look for a police/FBI movie here. Wrong to seek for accuracy in the historic accounts. Very far from historians point of view about the subject of this movie. Largely away from a courtroom play. Far apart from everything but a nice, smooth, intelligent love story.

This closet gay, this schizophrenic, obsessive, manipulative (and subtly manipulated) man that devoted his life as a whole to improve (according to him and almost nobody else) the USA homeland security, is trapped between his one and only professional interest and his deranged, unhappy, socially handicapped private life. He loves someone, somebody loves him as well, some people just tolerates him because they can get something in trade... And this situation perpetuates itself for weeks, months, years, decades and more decades.

Eastwood directs this film in his usual, highly stylized manner; huge detail shots to remark some point, the fluid, ubiquitous steady cam job and his tender, meticulous cut-to-the-bone actors directing. He doesn't think Hoover was a completely sane man, and chooses to declare this (and his admiration for Hitchcock) through a scene that clearly resemblances "Psycho" (only with the Goldeberg variations instead of Herrmann's score and the "Eroica" number 9 record).

This movie, great as it is, supports itself on Eastwood's visual goldsmithing, a powerful script and four extraordinary performances: Leonardo DiCaprio, Judi Dench, Naomi Watts and Armie Hammer (somewhat disfigured by a flawed makeup). Nice cameo by Lea Thompson (as Ginger Rogers' mother) and David Clennon (who starred in John Carpenter's "The Thing" as the ever-stoned pilot Palmer). Regarding to this, one of the most claustrophobic films ever made, there is a tiny tribute to Carpenter in the scene where Hoover talks sincerely with his mother.

Looking for action in "J. Edgar" equals to look for boxing in "Million dollar baby": they are only movies about love, father-sister, mother-son, lover-lover, friend to friend and so on. This is what Mr. Eastwood masters the best.

The Artist (I) (2011)

Cinema in its most chemically pure state

[9/10 · 10 February 2012]

Hitchcock used to say that the silent movies were the most perfect state of the cinematographic art. And, of course, this is an undeniable truth.

In 2011, a French director, obviously a movie buff, sketches out this profound, touching, brilliant recreation of a time, a set of techniques and a filmmaking community long ago gone.

The Artist is an exercise of style; despite the fact that some of the shooting techniques from the silent era cannot be reproduced now (for technical or commercial reasons), director Michel Hazanavicius shows to our unaccustomed eyes the life and the work of the men and women who made movies even before the modern film language was invented (by Hitchcock himself).

The traumatic and difficult transition between the silent and the talkies is portrayed here from the point of view of a great silent actor, who is dubious about his ability to talk on camera and keep being believable. This membrane shakes the entire industry, and even the companies have to decide whether to keep making silents or retrain their entire productive process into the sound. There is a beautiful love store embedded in, and a superb directorial work, mixing ancient and modern techniques to configure a shining piece of visual narrative, a real time travel to the past and a heart touching tribute to those pioneers. The only obvious anachronism is the modern make up (I'd rather like the kind they used to wear back then, so full of contrast and flamboyant to the naked eye, but not for those lowly sensitive film emulsions), but, letting this aside, the entire movie becomes a highly developed piece of art, fluid and flawless.

Great acting of the entire cast (that Argentinian beauty Bérénice Bejo will left you breathless many times), with all the craftsmanship of John Goodman and James Cromwell... But watch out particularly for Uggy the Jack Russell Terrier, because the little guy is perfectly capable of stealing your heart. As a matter of fact, the dog is just another main character in this film. He cannot talk, but the humans don't, either.

Also, watch out for the last ten minutes of the music score: the trained ears of classic moviegoers will found a revered master there (two of them, in fact). And lots and lots of cinephile winks and tiny tributes for the eyes capable of spotting them.

All in all, a movie about the movies, the filmmakers and the actors, and a great artistic work almost perfect in itself.

Worth watching? Of course yes... twice.

The Hurt Locker (2008)

Strange, powerful and, in a sense, beautiful

[6/10 · 7 February 2012]

The Hurt Locker, by the ultimately competent and highly skilled Kathryn Bigelow, is treated like a newsreel or a semi documentary, à la The Blair Witch Project. This shaky, many times soft-focused (or just plain out of focus) camera, gives the movie some sort of immediacy, a kind of weird impression of testimony, where the viewer feels he's participating of the action or, at the very least, is seeing a very real event. Focused mainly in the disorders the war introduces in soldiers personalities, Bigelow does her very best to portray the fears, the guilts and, perhaps, the straightforward psychosis they suffer, but, in my opinion, fails to deliver the sense of commitment and sacrifice that, in the very deep, justifies the volunteering they professed. Nice Irak War movie, well acted and of course very well directed, THL shows nice special appearances by Guy Pearce, Evangeline Lilly, David Morse and Ralph Fiennes, despite the fact these are little more than cameos. The weakest point in its scrip is —no doubt about this— the almost unbelievable and plainly ridiculous declaration of principles and philosophy of war analysis towards the end, not because of who makes it, but because of who is this paragraph directed to. Six stars out of ten, mostly because the perfect timing, excellent mise-en-scène and great directing, and because, you know, this is the beautiful and intelligent Bigelow. Worth watching if you can tolerate some unconventional and original narrative resources and techniques.

The Man from Earth (2007)

Nearly... Perfect!

[8/10 · 14 June 2011]

What if you could live forever? What if you had lived from the Pleistocene uninterruptedly until now? What kind of memories would you carry with you? What objects or artifacts would you discard? Which ones to preserve? What would your opinions be about, say, the New Testament, the Roman Empire, the Nazi Germany or the Napoleonic Wars, if you were witness (or an actual main character) of all of them? As an intellectual exercise, some scientists question the trues and falsities of someone who claims to be precisely that. Is he a real time traveller? Is he an immortal man? Is he simply, plainly mad and should be institutionalized? How could you prove you were alive in the Stone Age? Even if your own freedom depends on that proof? In an austere, minimalist, nearly monastic mise-en-scène, the movie moves on an on, always forward, depicting accurately the questions we would ask to a man that claims he was just then and there, while Christ raised himself —supposedly— from the grave, when the Cro-Magnons migrated east to the plains of Central Asia, when... The movie questions, questions, asks,asks... Just enough to generate the anger from those who think they have all the answers: the believers, the historians, the scientists. Fortunately, we don't think that way, and the movie shows us we shouldn't. Ever. Superbe acting, neat, nearly perfect tale-telling and direction, in a fantastic movie supported by an awesome script.

The Pacific (2010)

The USMC against Mordor armies.

[8/10 · 30 November 2010]

What a scenery! What a menacing, depressing, dark introduction of a place and a time! Comparisons are never fair, and never best used this saying than in this case. "The Pacific" is NOT BoB, and therefore there's no reason to compare one each other. None. The conflicts were different, the tactics were different, the kind of troops used were different, the commanding style was different, the battlefields were different, the overall strategies were different and the testimonies and actors and directors are different. So, why this new sport, "comparing the two series"? "The Pacific", thankfully, is one of the best dramatizations of one of the less known conflicts in America's history: the war in the Pacific OT. The other is, obviously, the Civil War, which very few good movies looked at. I have myself, in my country, some wars that are almost never mentioned or referred at: the Guerra del Paraguay (the war between Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil for one side and the poor, unfairly attacked Paraguay for the other), the Guerra de la Organización Nacional (The Organizational War, an euphemism for the Argentinian Civil, brutal War), an so on...

But the "The Pacific" writers and directors approaches the long forgotten ground campaign in the South Pacific as it deserves: with a dark, terrified look on these young, unexperienced Marines who fight —almost without a minute of rest— against the fearless, unsurrending Japanese soldiers, all of this without hope, without good supplies, under friendly artillery fire and in wasted landscapes that so much resemble the audience the devastated, volcanic, full of poisonous fumes terrains of Mordor.

And the Japanese are depicted as orkish as well: there's an ancient military proverb that says that, the closer to their fatherland the defending army is fighting, the more motivated to kill, the less likely to surrender and the more ferocious to fight. It's understandable: they have their women and children and home behind their back, and they don't want you to gain terrain.

Great acting by Joseph Mazzello, John Seda (with a great deal of guilt and remorse), Rami Malek, William Sadler and, the best among the cast, that huge, non-methodic, ultra-expressionist Australian actor Gary Sweet.

Worth watching 10 hours of this? You'll be sorry it's not 20.

Carancho (2010)

Far, very far from the best Trapero

[6/10 · 25 November 2010]

Knowing Pablo Trapero's previous works, I found myself thinking (three quarters into the movie) "Wow, it seems the guy lost it". Not a bad movie itself, good, strong, structured script, plenty of bad guys who are bad only to make a living but otherwise understand their victims' problems and motivations, but afflicted by some lack of style, narrative rhythm and, last but not least, a very poor acting and voice management by the female lead, Martina Gusman.

Otherwise beautiful,sexy and well planted in front of the contained, every-year-more-Arab-looking Darín, the conflicted, substance-sustained heroine (pun intended) fails to show the downfall of a reputation-seeking doctor, trapped in a war which is not hers, anchored to a love she didn't ask for and, nevertheless, makes part of the cruel disintegration of her world.

The nervous, shaking camera style of Trapero in this flick, adds tension to the tale but fails to remark some important dramatic points. He misses, too, regarding to acting direction, allowing some of the actors —not all, granted— to deploy "methodic" works (in the sense of Actor's Studio ones) which do more damage than good to the development of the plot.

All said, "Carancho" adds nothing to the brilliant Trapero's career, far away from his brilliant "Mundo Grúa" and "El bonaerense". Fairly enough, this one can be considered just one lesser work.

Worth watching? If you like claustrophobic, dark, miserable, sordid crime movie, but with not that good acting and directing, yes. If this isn't the case, look for Adrián Caetano's "Un oso rojo".